• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
But I am not convinced that allowing the UK to remain in the European single market, completely free of charge, after it has left the EU, would produce a large number of losers.
Click to expand...
I did not say that.

I was asking myself the question: does the EU also force Canada to pay for market access? The answer is apparently "no". This requirement seems to apply to the UK, but not to Canada. And this, once again, leads me back to my idea that the UK may need to better defend itself.
Click to expand...
1)The EU can't force anyone to pay for market access. What's it going to do? Invade?
2)The EU has made it clear that the UK can have the same kind of deal as Canada.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
I did not say that.


1)The EU can't force anyone to pay for market access. What's it going to do? Invade?
2)The EU has made it clear that the UK can have the same kind of deal as Canada.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that Canada is not a member of the single market. This seems to be confusing him.
 
The Moog said:
It should be noted that Canada is not a member of the single market. This seems to be confusing him.
Click to expand...
I've heard that one of the symptoms of hypothermia is confusion... perhaps Michel H is located much farther east then even he himself imagined.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I agree but I would love someone to explain to me why the SNP continue to hol off on a referendum. We have now reached the point where rather than Scotland continuing to be a member of the EU it will have to leave and apply for readmission which will probably mean less favourable terms.

I appreciate that there had to be a balance between calling the referendum and waiting for the fustercluck to play out but it is surely preferable to man the lifeboats BEFORE the ship sinks?
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is the lack of any idea of what's going on. IIRC Sturegon wants some kind of clarity before trying for another independence referendum, which is commendable in a way since it allows for an informed choice from the voters.

I mean she could try and just force a referendum now and then make up a bunch of rubbish like the leave campaign did with Brexit, but do you really want to be seen as doing that?

Also IIRC there was the accepted opinion that had Scotland voted for independence in the last referendum they would be losing EU membership by virtue of breaking away from an existing member. I would assume that the same thing would still happen.

Michel H said:
But I am not convinced that allowing the UK to remain in the European single market, completely free of charge, after it has left the EU, would produce a large number of losers. On the contrary, this would probably be an enormous relief, on both sides of the Channel. So I am coming back to my idea that the EU may have some bad extortion habits, and that many British remainers are actually against their country. I don't know if I should use the word "traitor" (this is not a war), but such a word is perhaps not completely out of place.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is the EU being extortionate in any way. I mean what you're suggesting here would produce 30-31 losers (depending on how you view Switzerland's contributions) because the UK is getting all these rights to the market for free. Why would the EU agree to that at all?

I was asking myself the question: does the EU also force Canada to pay for market access? The answer is apparently "no". This requirement seems to apply to the UK, but not to Canada. And this, once again, leads me back to my idea that the UK may need to better defend itself.
Click to expand...

The EU doesn't expect Canada to pay for market access because that's not what is happening. The payment isn't for being able to access the market, it's to be part of the market. In this sense access is only a small part of what is being paid for. Countries are paying for additional rights for their citizens and businesses. Passporting rights for banks, working and worker rights for EU citizens, and the provision of services are all examples of these benefits that countries get for being paid members of the market.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
JK Rowling is part of the reason Scotland is in this situation at all. Two faces.
Click to expand...

Well think of it this way: She is consistent in her preference for unions.
 
Wildy said:
Part of the problem is the lack of any idea of what's going on. IIRC Sturegon wants some kind of clarity before trying for another independence referendum, which is commendable in a way since it allows for an informed choice from the voters.

I mean she could try and just force a referendum now and then make up a bunch of rubbish like the leave campaign did with Brexit, but do you really want to be seen as doing that?

Also IIRC there was the accepted opinion that had Scotland voted for independence in the last referendum they would be losing EU membership by virtue of breaking away from an existing member. I would assume that the same thing would still happen.
Click to expand...

That was the 'accepted opinion' by unionists but it didn't really hold any water under examination. Scotland's membership of the EU would have been continuous.

Well think of it this way: She is consistent in her preference for unions.
Click to expand...

But highly inconsistent in her preference for votes when circumstances change.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
1)The EU can't force anyone to pay for market access. What's it going to do? Invade?
Click to expand...
Not invading, no, but it could block goods at the border if tariffs have not be paid. And additional border checks could also cause great delays.
2)The EU has made it clear that the UK can have the same kind of deal as Canada.
Click to expand...
Yes, but going from the current situation in which Britain is part of the EU's single market to a Canada-style trade deal is a great step backwards, as explained here (see also https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/28/frictionless-trade-is-not-the-same-as-free-trade/ for a nice and pedagogical explanation of "frictionless trade").

And the situation which is looming now, starting 29 March 2019, is not even a Canada-style trade deal (with quotas, some tariffs, customs controls, and financial services not being covered), it is a "catastrophic" no-deal, a giant step backwards.

Trade between the UK and the EU is worth 318 billion pounds (see BBC article cited above), while trade between Canada and the EU amounts to 50 billion pounds (more than six times smaller).

So, I think that perhaps the EU, instead of having fun being a global player and developing trade deals with Canada and Japan, should perhaps have focused more on the UK, and made the necessary concessions to keep it in the Union. These necessary concessions are, in my opinion, a quota on European immigrants into the UK of, for example 10,000 annually (or more if the UK consents to it), this means of course a limitation on one of the "four freedoms", which should not become a dogmatic new religion (the world needs probably less religion, not more, I suppose we can agree on that on this forum).

And a permanent reduction of the UK's financial contribution to Europe, which would change the UK from being a large net contributor to a modest net contributor (while still paying a normal fee to the various European agencies), to acknowledge the fact that free trade by itself costs nothing and is generally beneficial to all, including to non-UK members of the Union (this fact was understood by Boris Johnson, I think, but does not seem to be well understood by many members of this forum).
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
JK Rowling is part of the reason Scotland is in this situation at all. Two faces.
Click to expand...

It is perfectly logically consistent to believe that Scotland would be better within the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom would be better within the EU.

Anti Leave campaigners used the same arguments - which was ironic for those who campaigned against Scottish independence, yet for Brexit.
 
Michel H said:
Not invading, no, but it could block goods at the border if tariffs have not be paid. And additional border checks could also cause great delays.
Click to expand...
But that's what any country in the world does. The UK is leaving the EU so that it can "control its own borders". That means it wants additional border checks and to collect tariffs.

Yes, but going from the current situation in which Britain is part of the EU's single market to a Canada-style trade deal is a great step backwards, as explained here (see also https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/28/frictionless-trade-is-not-the-same-as-free-trade/ for a nice and pedagogical explanation of "frictionless trade").
Click to expand...
The UK voted to leave the EU. The UK does not wish to be part of the single market.

And the situation which is looming now, starting 29 March 2019, is not even a Canada-style trade deal (with quotas, some tariffs, customs controls, and financial services not being covered), it is a "catastrophic" no-deal, a giant step backwards.

Trade between the UK and the EU is worth 318 billion pounds (see BBC article cited above), while trade between Canada and the EU amounts to 50 billion pounds (more than six times smaller).
Click to expand...
You are right. The UK certainly made a very bad choice.

So, I think that perhaps the EU, instead of having fun being a global player and developing trade deals with Canada and Japan, should perhaps have focused more on the UK, and made the necessary concessions to keep it in the Union.
Click to expand...
Then the UK government should have negotatied for these concessions.
There's nothing the EU can do if the UK government can't do its job. The UK is a sovereign country.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I agree but I would love someone to explain to me why the SNP continue to hol off on a referendum. We have now reached the point where rather than Scotland continuing to be a member of the EU it will have to leave and apply for readmission which will probably mean less favourable terms.

I appreciate that there had to be a balance between calling the referendum and waiting for the fustercluck to play out but it is surely preferable to man the lifeboats BEFORE the ship sinks?
Click to expand...

I read an opinion piece somewhere that, having lost one Indy ref, the SNP can only really call one more. A 3rd in a few years would be seen negatively, people would resent the "bother" of the process. If this is the case then they'll be very careful exactly when to take that shot. At the moment politics is in case especially with Corbyn displaying admirable dexterity in managing to sit on the fence while both thumbs are up his arse.
 
3point14 said:
Pharmaceutical organisations working with Whitehall to maintain medicine supplies in the event of a no-deal Brexit have signed 26 “gagging orders” that bar them from revealing information to the public.


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...preparing-no-deal-brexit-ordered-to-sign-ndas
Click to expand...

Well I managed to get information from one of my suppliers before the gagging orders were signed. I have glaucoma, and I get my prescription eye drops from my local GP pharmacy. Supplies in the past even before the threats of Brexit were not very consistent, and sometimes they were not available at all, so I asked the manufacturer in Ireland directly why the frequent disruption to supply. They replied with an email stating that they only supply the UK mainland on a basic historical need basis. This is to protect their overseas market by preventing re export to other countries from the UK in a potential oversupply situation. Essentially, for UK patients they work hand to mouth, in supply terms and sometimes that leads to shortages when pharmacies try to stock up to cushion supply disruption. Fat chance then that my medicine will be stocked piled to maintain supply over the expected six month no deal disruption.
 
Explorer said:
Well I managed to get information from one of my suppliers before the gagging orders were signed. I have glaucoma, and I get my prescription eye drops from my local GP pharmacy. Supplies in the past even before the threats of Brexit were not very consistent, and sometimes they were not available at all, so I asked the manufacturer in Ireland directly why the frequent disruption to supply. They replied with an email stating that they only supply the UK mainland on a basic historical need basis. This is to protect their overseas market by preventing re export to other countries from the UK in a potential oversupply situation. Essentially, for UK patients they work hand to mouth, in supply terms and sometimes that leads to shortages when pharmacies try to stock up to cushion supply disruption. Fat chance then that my medicine will be stocked piled to maintain supply over the expected six month no deal disruption.
Click to expand...

Having the pharmaceutical industry sign a gagging law is completely contrary to the public's right to know. It implies the drug companies have been paid a substantial sum of money to keep shtum. It is undemocratic and needs to be brought up in Parliament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom